Here’s a number for the Republican Party to remember for future reference, 21. Twenty-one, that’s the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans according to the latest Washington Post poll, the lowest that figure has been in 26 years.

Remember that number at the next meeting of the RNC, when you propose another stupid resolution like the one to brand the opposition as Socialists instead of Democrats.

Remember that number before you send Newt Gingrich out to say that President Obama is bowing to pressure from the “anti-American left” in considering allowing prosecution of former Bush administration officials.

Remember that when Sen. Judd Gregg says this regarding the use of the budget reconciliation process :

Remember that number when former Senator and present radio blowhard Fred Thompson says something like this:

“And then after promising that there would be no prosecutions, [Obama] acquiesced and now opened the door for that. So I think it’s a case of naivete, ineptitude and unbelievable arrogance and lack of experience.”

Remember that number when Sen. McCain and Sen. Bond say that President Obama is turning the United States into a “banana republic.”

Remember that number the next time Congressman Eric Cantor confronts President Obama about spending cuts, then when asked by the president for a list of areas where Cantor himself would cut, responds:

Torture is a war crime, I don’t think there’s much debate about that. The Geneva Conventions say so, the United Nations Convention Against Torture says so. What constitutes torture, and whether or not waterboarding qualifies, may be debatable for some, but that’s not the topic for today.

In my opinion, recent revelations have uncovered a greater war crimes than torture. That is the Bush administration taking this country into war in Iraq on false and concocted premises, and the lengths to which they were willing to go to make a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11 to justify that war.

Frank Rich’s excellent op-ed in the New York Times and the chain of events in 2002 makes this clear; from the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, to the Downing Street memo, to the Bybee memo authorizing the use of the “enhanced techniques.”

But that’s not what the Bush administration wanted, as stated in the Downing Street memo from July 2002:

“There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

August 1, 2002 brought the Bybee memo calling Zubaydah “one of the highest ranking members of the al-Qaeda terrorist organization”,which by that time they knew was untrue, and authorizing the “increased pressure phase” because interrogators were “certain that he has information that he refuses to divulge.” Another lie.

“There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods..”

But the Bush administration didn’t care about the reliability, they just wanted someone to say the words establishing the link between Saddam and 9/11. Whether or not it was true, or whether the means by which they achieved that goal were in violation of U.S. or international law was irrelevant.

As Frank Rich put it:

“…the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections.

But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.”

Attempting to sell a war based on bogus intelligence obtained through illegal means? To me, that is a war crime worse than torture.

There are a couple of articles in the news this morning that are bringing cries of ‘See, we told you so’ from the defenders of the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

One is from CNS News, which says that the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yielded information that prevented a terrorist attack on Los Angeles.

The other is from the New York Times, which contains this quote from a memo sent by national intelligence director Admiral Dennis Blair to his staff:

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country.”

Those are headlines you are likely to see from those who seek to justify the use of torture. What you aren’t likely to read in those same places is this quote, also from Admiral Blair, also in the NYT article:

“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.”

So I’ll ask you, should the policy of the United States of America regarding interrogation be ‘whatever it takes?’ Do we adopt the tactics, such as waterboarding, used by Imperial Japan in WWII, tactics which were later prosecuted as war crimes, and which were common in Pol Pot’s Cambodia?

“What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and ideals even when it’s hard — not just when it’s easy; even when we are afraid and under threat — not just when it’s expedient to do so. That’s what makes us different.”

One more question. If we sink to the level of Osama bin Laden and his followers who seek to do us harm, haven’t they won?

To prosecute or not to prosecute, that is the question. With the release of the Justice Department memos last week detailing the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” (aka torture) used by the CIA, the debate has begun over what to do to those who were involved.

I fully understand the desire of the administration to, as the President said, “look forward and not backward.” We are facing the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression and the President wants the focus to be on getting our economy back on a solid footing. I get that.

But at the same time I believe that the people responsible for the despicable acts described in those memos need to be held accountable. Not only the people who carried out those acts but those who approved and condoned their use.

The reason being that if we don’t hold them accountable it seems to me we are setting a dangerous precedent for (God forbid) a future administration with a vice-president like the Marquis de Cheney.

“I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it. ”

“We proceeded very cautiously; we checked, we had the Justice Department issue the requisite opinions in order to know where the bright lines were that you could not cross. The professionals involved in that program were very, very cautious, very careful, wouldn’t do anything without making certain it was authorized and that it was legal. And any suggestion to the contrary is just wrong.”

“Very cautiously” and knowing “where the lines were that you could not cross.” Really? See if you think this sounds cautious and does not cross any lines.

“According to the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002″.

That’s 6 times a day, every day for a month for Mohammed. That’s cautious and not crossing lines?

“The point isn’t whether or not Mohammed is a bad man. There’s no doubt he is. The point is that we can’t allow ourselves to act just as despicable as him. I mean, Bush said they hate our freedoms, right? Well what happens when we compromise our values to mirror theirs? Doesn’t that make us less free?”
And this from Emptywheel:
“The CIA wants you to believe waterboarding is effective. Yet somehow, it took them 183 applications of the waterboard in a one month period to get what they claimed was cooperation out of KSM.

That doesn’t sound very effective to me.”

So back to the question, to prosecute or not to prosecute?

Despite the possible loss of focus on economic issues, I see the option of not prosecuting having far greater repercussions than that of going forward with prosecution.

Somebody in the Republican Party please put an end to this insanity before it’s too late. Let’s look at what has happened since January 20th:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota has said she wants the people of her state to be “armed and dangerous.”

Former Senator Rick Santorum wrote in an opinion piece in the Philadelphia Enquirer that President Obama “has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions.”

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said President Obama is waging a “war against churches” and that “there’s a clear desire to replace the church with a bureaucracy, and to replace people’s right to worship together with a government-dominated system.”

Congressman Spencer Bachus from Alabama said that 17 members of the House of Representatives are “socialists.”

Rick Perry, the governor of the second largest state in the nation, is talking about the possibility of secession.

The Georgia Senate passed a resolution calling for the nullification of the Constitution and disbanding of the United States.

Congressman Mark Kirk from Illinois has suggested that the people of that state “shoot anyone” who proposes to raise their taxes.

Congressman Michael McCaul from Texas is making speeches about tyranny and oppression, citing Thomas Jefferson’s quote that “the tree of liberty will be fed with the blood of tyrants and patriots.”

Add to these the constant drumbeat from talk radio hosts about re-education camps, fascism, totalitarianism, and this administration taking away Constitutional rights.

Granted, probably 99.9% of the people who hear or read these things know it is just blowhard politicians trying to gain votes by appealing to their Republican base.

But what about the other 0.1%? What do they do? Do they get an assault rifle and kill police officers because they think their rights are being taken away? Do they fill a truck with explosives and park it in front of a federal building?

Keep this t-shirt in mind Republicans, before you quote Jefferson:

Anybody know what this is? It’s the shirt that Timothy McVeigh was wearing when he was arrested.

The Republican hypocrisy train rolls on. Today’s two shining examples are Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and House Minority Leader, Mr. Spray-On Tan himself, John Boehner of Ohio. The subject is whether or not government spending creates jobs.

“The majority in Congress has been in runaway mode when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars. This legislation is yet another sign that Washington is more concerned with pet projects than with the welfare of taxpayers.”

But when Defense Secretary Gates announced plans last week to end production of the F-22, which just by coincidence is done at a plant in Marietta, GA, Sen. Chambliss changed his opinion of the importance of those so-called “pet projects.”

“When it comes to stimulating the economy, there’s no better way to do it than to spend it in the defense community.”

“I also believe that it is unacceptable that this administration wants to eliminate 2,000 jobs in Marietta and potentially 95,000 jobs nationwide at a time when unemployment rates are rising across the country. Senator Chambliss and I will be taking the case of the F-22 to members of Congress and the Appropriations Committees. The F-22 is vital to 21st century American military superiority.”

I thought part of the Republican mantra was that government spending didn’t create jobs? I guess that only holds true when the spending is done in someone else’s home state or district.

“When it comes to slow-moving government spending programs, it’s clear that it doesn’t create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen.”

With the possible exception of when defense contractor BAE was awarded a $71, 546, 085 no-bid contract for one of it’s subsidiaries in Fairfield, Ohio to build doors for armored vehicles.

Can we assume that no jobs were created in your district because of that contract, Congressman Boehner? Kinda doubt it.

Tell you what I’m gonna do, Republicans. I offer my services, for a reasonable fee of course, as a researcher for you guys to stop you from opening your yap and making such fools of yourselves. I feel it’s my patriotic duty.

There are both encouraging and discouraging signs today in the battle over who’s in charge, Wall Street or Washington. First the good news. Finally, somebody in D.C. gets it.

“Elizabeth Warren, chief watchdog of America’s $700 billion bank bailout plan, will this week call for the removal of top executives from Citigroup, AIG and other institutions that have received government funds in a damning report that will question the administration’s approach to saving the financial system from collapse.

She declined to give more detail but confirmed that she would refer to insurance group AIG, which has received $173 billion in bailout money, and banking giant Citigroup, which has had $45 billion in funds and more than $316 billion of loan guarantees.”

With one simple sentence Warren summed up what, in my opinion, should be the consensus among those in the Obama administration.

“The very notion that anyone would infuse money into a financially troubled entity without demanding changes in management is preposterous.”

That’s the good news, now for the bad. There are some “administration officials”( I smell Larry Summers) who are busy looking for loopholes in congressional restrictions placed on financial institutions who receive bailout money.

“The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefitting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.”

“Persuading”, aka bribing.

“The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.”

But there’s rain on that parade, too. Rep. Melissa Bean of Illinois, one of the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, sponsored an amendment which would “allow institutions that enter into a payment schedule with Treasury on terms set by Treasury to no longer be subject to the bonus and compensation restrictions created by the Act.“

It passed 228-198 with the support of 63 Democrats, most of whom also voted for Grayson’s bill. Go figure.

As I read the reviews around the blogosphere this morning of the latest work of science fiction known as the Republican alternative budget there seems to be 2 recurring themes. Questioning the sanity of the authors of that document, and a reference to the date on which it was released—April 1st.

Josh Marshall of TPM:
“I realize that it doesn’t afford me a lot of opportunities for personal or spiritual growth. But I’m nonetheless comforted by the fact that the Republicans running things in the House GOP caucus are still as clinically insane as in years past.”

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
“It’s one thing to offer bad ideas. It’s another to offer bad ideas without doing your homework. But House GOP lawmakers are offering proposals that are just insane. Reading through the party’s new report one notices that we’d get just as serious a proposal from a group of children with crayons.”

Ron Beasley at Newshoggers:
“The Republican leadership was selected for a lack of independent thought and the ability to blindly follow the leader. There is no leader and they are unable to come up with any new ideas. They can’t even do sane politics.”

Kenneth Baer, OMB communications director:“If you expected a GOP alternative to the failed policies of the past that got our country into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, then I have two words for you: April Fool’s.”

Bob Cesca at Huffington Post:
“It only makes sense that a party currently being wagged by fringe crazy people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann would release it’s alternative budget on April Fool’s Day.”

Here are just a few details that might help explain this reaction.

First, the massive tax cut reducing the top marginal rate from 35% to 25% and the explosion in the deficit that would cause. But here’s the rest of the story. The revenue predictions in this so-called budget are based on a top rate of 35%. So Republicans are assuming that wealthy people will choose the higher rate over the lower one.

The proposed 5 year freeze on non-defense discretionary spending. This means trivial things like education, health care, infrastructure, law enforcement, and medical research. All things we can do without, right?

“This is an idea that’s been kicking around in conservative circles for some time, and it’s an expensive one. Well, it’s expensive unless you’re an insurance company, in which case it’s extremely lucrative. The goal is to phase out Medicare over time by providing new seniors with the same health insurance options available under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

And last but not least there is this chart which presumes to track Democratic and Republican budget policy for the next 70 years.

Seventy year projections from the same people who didn’t see this recession coming. Now tell me the one about Goldilocks and the bears.